|
Post by bluehen on Aug 7, 2020 16:09:38 GMT
Sampler idea :
Take any public place....let's say a Wal-Mart (preferably in the Southeast) . In the course of a day, give every adult ,' never mask' type shopper an IQ test upon exiting. Likewise give those mask wearing shoppers the same IQ test and compare the group averages. Which group would test out to have the higher average IQ ? I'm confident of the answer.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 7, 2020 16:14:55 GMT
Sampler idea : Take any public place....let's say a Wal-Mart (preferably in the Southeast) . In the course of a day, give every adult ,' never mask' type shopper an IQ test upon exiting. Likewise give those mask wearing shoppers the same IQ test and compare the group averages. Which group would test out to have the higher average IQ ? I'm confident of the answer. I wouldn't be so sure, Hen. The friends of mine who are the strongest AGAINST mask wearing are all highly intelligent people. Most people just "go along" with the consensus. You WILL find lower IQ's, among Wal-Mart shoppers in Connecticut vs Mississippi. That, I would wager on.
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Aug 7, 2020 16:33:45 GMT
I suspect you'd find a higher % of 'never maskers' in Mississippi than in Connecticut.
As for the sampler , you could do a highest level of education survey too and I suspect the group with the highest average educational level achieved would be the mask wearing group.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 7, 2020 16:38:07 GMT
I suspect the group with the highest average educational level achieved would be the mask wearing group. You're probably right. But, that doesn't mean they're right.
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 7, 2020 17:56:11 GMT
I'm curious; are the Dutch and Danes considered part of the "South"? Their national leaders have also not supported mandated mask-wearing in the general public. Denmark, in particular has survived the Covid crisis pretty well, without having their general public wear masks. As an engineer, you should be well versed in the difference between "theory" and "practicality". In theory, masks should slow transmission of such a virus, at least from respiratory droplets. However, so far anyway, for the studies that have been done looking at the actual effectiveness in a general population, there hasn't been much evidence that they matter. Not hard to believe, when you look at what people are actually doing. There certainly has not been a correlation between case spread and mask wearing in the various states that have gone through 2nd waves. California mandated mask wearing on June 18. Take a look at how effective it was. COVID didn't care. There are at least a couple of studies underway to investigate more closely. We should have better data with a few months. DO you recall, a few months ago everyone was so worried about the spread of COVID on surfaces that we were told we should disinfect all the groceries we brought home from the store. Why? Because there were studies showing COVID particles survived for several days, even weeks on various kinds of surfaces. Accurate studies, I'm sure... verifying a "theoretical method of transmission". Further studies have shown, in practice, this not a significant mode of transmission and we don't actually need to wipe every pickle jar with Chlorox. There remains much to be learned. It's not helpful though, when one side rushes out with a solution (that may well not be a solution at all) and then proclaims that anyone who doesn't jump on board is "anti-science". Science is defined by challenging and proving. The Danes mandates lockdown earlier than the United States, and their citizens voluntarily did it before it was required. A different culture and obviously their lockdowns worked. Saying that there is no evidence that masks work is quite simply a lie. It is intellectual dishonesty. Everywhere you search you find reputable sources saying they do and supplying supporting evidence. medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2020/07/do-cloth-masks-workThe fact that earlier studies suggested we should be more concerned about surface contamination, and newer studies show that maybe it isn’t as big of a threat, shows that the experts are learning and adapting, and recommending based on the current evidence. This is not just a feel good mandate, or as some lunatics think, a communist Trojan horse. And you’ve yet to respond about the study you posted, the one you claim makes you doubt wearing a mask is effective. That same study also says washing your hands and covering your mouth when you sneeze/cough is ineffective. So why aren’t you also questioning those who recommend we wash our hands? In fact you were a proponent of that earlier in the thread. Why the selective bias?
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 7, 2020 18:18:00 GMT
I'm curious; are the Dutch and Danes considered part of the "South"? Their national leaders have also not supported mandated mask-wearing in the general public. Denmark, in particular has survived the Covid crisis pretty well, without having their general public wear masks. As an engineer, you should be well versed in the difference between "theory" and "practicality". In theory, masks should slow transmission of such a virus, at least from respiratory droplets. However, so far anyway, for the studies that have been done looking at the actual effectiveness in a general population, there hasn't been much evidence that they matter. Not hard to believe, when you look at what people are actually doing. There certainly has not been a correlation between case spread and mask wearing in the various states that have gone through 2nd waves. California mandated mask wearing on June 18. Take a look at how effective it was. COVID didn't care. There are at least a couple of studies underway to investigate more closely. We should have better data with a few months. DO you recall, a few months ago everyone was so worried about the spread of COVID on surfaces that we were told we should disinfect all the groceries we brought home from the store. Why? Because there were studies showing COVID particles survived for several days, even weeks on various kinds of surfaces. Accurate studies, I'm sure... verifying a "theoretical method of transmission". Further studies have shown, in practice, this not a significant mode of transmission and we don't actually need to wipe every pickle jar with Chlorox. There remains much to be learned. It's not helpful though, when one side rushes out with a solution (that may well not be a solution at all) and then proclaims that anyone who doesn't jump on board is "anti-science". Science is defined by challenging and proving. Saying that there is no evidence that masks work is quite simply a lie. Why do you have such a hard time being truthful in a discussion? I didn't say there was "no evidence", I said "there hasn't been much evidence". I'm always happy to see some. I would like nothing more than for simple mask wearing to be the thing that significantly slows the spread of COVID. I am less enthusiastic about hand washing now, after reading more recent studies. Frankly, I've always doubted it was all that effective. But, it's not much of an inconvenience. Staying AWAY from people seems to be the best method to avoid getting ill. Unfortunately, it's also the most damaging to our economy.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 7, 2020 19:54:07 GMT
Some interesting comments at the bottom of the main study they are citing... the one looking at impact of mask mandates in varying states. www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818It's a pretty weak study. They're confirming VERY small changes in growth rates in COVID cases after a statewide mask mandate. At best, this a correlation, not causation. And, weak correlation at that. If you look at the actual case chart in Maryland, for example as it is mentioned in the summary, COVID cases continued to increase for 30 more days. Delaware, just next door, issued their mask mandate a week later. There wasn't a great lot of difference in the two. There is a lot of noise in the data, likely due to the measurement system. Not to mention the hidden noise of 'incorrect test results'. Trying to claim a 1-2% benefit in reduction of growth rate is a bit of a stretch. Especially, when reduction was already seen in the first 1-5 days...(ie: people who were likely infected BEFORE the mandate). Interesting, but definitely NOT proof that masks have any significant impact. Wouldn't be great if states actually did start seeing real reductions in cases just a few days after issuing a mask mandate? Californians would be much happier. NOTE: Sorry to be so "anti-science"... my scientific brain just doesn't know any other way.
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 7, 2020 21:45:01 GMT
Saying that there is no evidence that masks work is quite simply a lie. Why do you have such a hard time being truthful in a discussion? I didn't say there was "no evidence", I said "there hasn't been much evidence". I'm always happy to see some. I would like nothing more than for simple mask wearing to be the thing that significantly slows the spread of COVID. I am less enthusiastic about hand washing now, after reading more recent studies. Frankly, I've always doubted it was all that effective. But, it's not much of an inconvenience. Staying AWAY from people seems to be the best method to avoid getting ill. Unfortunately, it's also the most damaging to our economy. Then you are saying there is some evidence that masks work. Great! Why are you arguing? Even small things are beneficial in the spread of new, deadly virus.
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 7, 2020 21:54:09 GMT
Some interesting comments at the bottom of the main study they are citing... the one looking at impact of mask mandates in varying states. www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818It's a pretty weak study. They're confirming VERY small changes in growth rates in COVID cases after a statewide mask mandate. At best, this a correlation, not causation. And, weak correlation at that. If you look at the actual case chart in Maryland, for example as it is mentioned in the summary, COVID cases continued to increase for 30 more days. Delaware, just next door, issued their mask mandate a week later. There wasn't a great lot of difference in the two. There is a lot of noise in the data, likely due to the measurement system. Not to mention the hidden noise of 'incorrect test results'. Trying to claim a 1-2% benefit in reduction of growth rate is a bit of a stretch. Especially, when reduction was already seen in the first 1-5 days...(ie: people who were likely infected BEFORE the mandate). Interesting, but definitely NOT proof that masks have any significant impact. Wouldn't be great if states actually did start seeing real reductions in cases just a few days after issuing a mask mandate? Californians would be much happier. NOTE: Sorry to be so "anti-science"... my scientific brain just doesn't know any other way. You realize there is no strong way to study this. The meta-study you posted had to throw out over 95% of eligible studies because of flaws, and had questions about the 11 that it did use. Studying something like the spread of a virus, with so many variables, is difficult. Also, you realize people are dying. This is not a situation where you sit back and wait months for the perfect studies before you act. People are getting sick and dying.
Our understanding of the virus, how it spreads, and how masks work is enough for there to be a scientific and medical consensus that wearing masks is a positive thing. I don't understand the resistance, what is the downside? For people arguing against masks, it seems to be lack of trust in the scientists/doctors, or misplaced trust in the government.
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Aug 8, 2020 2:18:12 GMT
Another anti southern anti Trump rant having nothing to do with science nor any other redeeming quality. Fairly typical of The Washington Post. I can certainly see how this type would hold your interest. Onward, through the fog. It talks about the history of anti-science sentiment in the south. Interesting to point out that this anti-mask behavior is nothing new, just a different form of anti-science that has been around for a long time. The problem now is that being anti-science is risking the health and lives of people. The behavior of some people in the south certainly deserves ridicule. Arguing that we are throwing out god’s wonderful breathing system. It’s one thing when this idiocy is localized to the individual who will just remain ignorant their entire lives. But now they are quite literally a threat to others. The people who don’t take this virus seriously are so selfish and it’s frustrating. I guess they’ve been lucky enough not to be affected. More heat than light.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 8, 2020 14:40:46 GMT
Why do you have such a hard time being truthful in a discussion? I didn't say there was "no evidence", I said "there hasn't been much evidence". I'm always happy to see some. I would like nothing more than for simple mask wearing to be the thing that significantly slows the spread of COVID. I am less enthusiastic about hand washing now, after reading more recent studies. Frankly, I've always doubted it was all that effective. But, it's not much of an inconvenience. Staying AWAY from people seems to be the best method to avoid getting ill. Unfortunately, it's also the most damaging to our economy. Then you are saying there is some evidence that masks work. Great! Why are you arguing? Even small things are beneficial in the spread of new, deadly virus. I question because, there is MORE data that says they don't work. Even small things need to be judged by the amount of benefit provided vs the imposition required. Popping on a mask for a 10-15 min jaunt through a grocery store is no big deal. Having to wear one all day long is a different thing. Try wearing one on a 9 hour plane ride. Definitely, not much fun.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 8, 2020 15:16:03 GMT
Some interesting comments at the bottom of the main study they are citing... the one looking at impact of mask mandates in varying states. www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818It's a pretty weak study. They're confirming VERY small changes in growth rates in COVID cases after a statewide mask mandate. At best, this a correlation, not causation. And, weak correlation at that. If you look at the actual case chart in Maryland, for example as it is mentioned in the summary, COVID cases continued to increase for 30 more days. Delaware, just next door, issued their mask mandate a week later. There wasn't a great lot of difference in the two. There is a lot of noise in the data, likely due to the measurement system. Not to mention the hidden noise of 'incorrect test results'. Trying to claim a 1-2% benefit in reduction of growth rate is a bit of a stretch. Especially, when reduction was already seen in the first 1-5 days...(ie: people who were likely infected BEFORE the mandate). Interesting, but definitely NOT proof that masks have any significant impact. Wouldn't be great if states actually did start seeing real reductions in cases just a few days after issuing a mask mandate? Californians would be much happier. NOTE: Sorry to be so "anti-science"... my scientific brain just doesn't know any other way. You realize there is no strong way to study this. The meta-study you posted had to throw out over 95% of eligible studies because of flaws, and had questions about the 11 that it did use. Studying something like the spread of a virus, with so many variables, is difficult. Also, you realize people are dying. This is not a situation where you sit back and wait months for the perfect studies before you act. People are getting sick and dying.
Our understanding of the virus, how it spreads, and how masks work is enough for there to be a scientific and medical consensus that wearing masks is a positive thing. I don't understand the resistance, what is the downside? For people arguing against masks, it seems to be lack of trust in the scientists/doctors, or misplaced trust in the government.
yes. I realize that is a hard thing to test. But, there have been a few studies that have tried, and had setups that SHOULD have shown a response, but didn't. Of course, those were not COVID directly. They were similar things, like the flu. There are at least a couple of studies going on right now that should be able to show data within a few months. Meanwhile, here in the US, we have a lot of different states, even different counties within a state that are following different paths. So far, I'm not seeing much differences in their COVID response. I like this site, because it lets you compare various states. covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america/kansasI was comparing Kansas to Nebraska. Kansas mandated mask on July 3, statewide. They still haven't seen a really significant decline in their cases. Apparently, they allowed some counties to opt out. Nebraska NEVER mandated masks, state wide. There numbers are NOT any different. In fact, most of the stats between these states are pretty much the same. To be fair, some cities in Nebraska, like Lincoln (Not Omaha) have mandates masks on their own. But, not the whole state. Which again, leads to the issue? What's the point of a state-wide mandate if there is no data that shows it helps? Maybe, local mandates are enough? Conservatives, as a rule, distrust government. That is known. Especially, a centralized powerful Federal government. The farther away the government is, the less control we have over it. We're not fans of making people in Montana wear a mask all day to save people in Florida. Unless perhaps, there is compelling evidence that THIS is what's required to save the good people of Florida. There is no such evidence. If local mandates can get the same results as state-wide mandates, why not allow local people to decide? I read an article that claimed ONLY Kansas states that mandated masks saw reductions in COVID cases. Counties that didn't saw none. I can't find the data to back that up. If true, that should make for a compelling study. There is a LOT of really bad science being published these days. In our hyper-partisan world, politics has infected virtually everything. I like to believe a healthy dose of challenging and examination will eventually bring GOOD science to the top. I'm fine with whatever result that shows for mask wearing. But ultimately, it is a POLITICAL decision whether a given community decides that the benefits is worth the imposition. Given this, it should be no surprise that there is disagreement. It's not "science" vs "anti-science". It's how the results are valued and weighed against other factors by people who are very different in their approaches to life.
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 8, 2020 15:16:55 GMT
Then you are saying there is some evidence that masks work. Great! Why are you arguing? Even small things are beneficial in the spread of new, deadly virus. I question because, there is MORE data that says they don't work. Even small things need to be judged by the amount of benefit provided vs the imposition required. Popping on a mask for a 10-15 min jaunt through a grocery store is no big deal. Having to wear one all day long is a different thing. Try wearing one on a 9 hour plane ride. Definitely, not much fun. Well yes, when you pick and choose, deciding to ignore the mechanism of how it is spread, and ignore the scientists and health exports, maybe there is more data saying they don’t work. The imposition is negligible considering people are dying. The evidence is in undeniably in their favor. Maybe you haven’t been personally effected in a more tangible way than having to wear a mask on a nine hour flight. If that’s the worst that corona has effected you, you are certainly lucky.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 8, 2020 15:28:36 GMT
I question because, there is MORE data that says they don't work. Even small things need to be judged by the amount of benefit provided vs the imposition required. Popping on a mask for a 10-15 min jaunt through a grocery store is no big deal. Having to wear one all day long is a different thing. Try wearing one on a 9 hour plane ride. Definitely, not much fun. Maybe you haven’t been personally effected in a more tangible way than having to wear a mask on a nine hour flight. If that’s the worst that corona has effected you, you are certainly lucky. I have been personally lucky. And so have ALL the people I know. I only know one person that has been hospitalized by Covid. He is a 65 year old black man that is diabetic and had a kidney transplant a year ago. He's still taking immune suppression medication. He was hospitalized for 3 days, but is now recovering at home. I have heard of some friends of mine who have lost family members. I'm 95% certain my wife and I have already had it, and recovered. But, it's a ridiculous argument to assume I have to be personally affected to be able to correctly understand and evaluate the science for or against mask wearing.
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 8, 2020 15:59:14 GMT
Maybe you haven’t been personally effected in a more tangible way than having to wear a mask on a nine hour flight. If that’s the worst that corona has effected you, you are certainly lucky. I have been personally lucky. And so have ALL the people I know. I only know one person that has been hospitalized by Covid. He is a 65 year old black man that is diabetic and had a kidney transplant a year ago. He's still taking immune suppression medication. He was hospitalized for 3 days, but is now recovering at home. I have heard of some friends of mine who have lost family members. I'm 95% certain my wife and I have already had it, and recovered. But, it's a ridiculous argument to assume I have to be personally affected to be able to correctly understand and evaluate the science for or against mask wearing. I wasn’t making that argument. But when you bring up that wearing a mask on a plane sucks, it really has no bearing on anything. Your optional flight on a commercial aircraft would require masks regardless of any government mandates. You’ve ignored the mechanism of spread, the scientists, the health experts. You’ve made false claims about how it spreads. You posted a study that you claim helped shape your view on masks, but somehow selectively didn’t shape your view on hand washing. And when asked why the resistance to masks, your best argument is that they suck on a flight - where they are required outside of any government mandate. If idiots took this seriously, we would be more like the Danes, and you’d be back to your non-masked flights sooner. But instead the anti-mask crowd had to fight the good fight against ‘government oppression’.
|
|